With Trump in office and Republican control over house and senate, the chances of passage of a national carry reciprocity bill now seems quite high.  There are currently 3 or 4 proposed bills.  They are all substantially similar -- and all specifically provide that reciprocity doesn't apply to a person in their state of residence.  For example, if such a bill passed, permit holders resident in any other state could carry in NJ but a NJ resident with an out of state permit could not.  That is an insane result and it would be interesting to see what would happen.

 

My question is -- why?  Why do each of these bills have this same limitation?  Tenth Amendment challenge?  Granting reciprocity to non-NJ residents would itself already be subject to Tenth Amendment challenge?  Is it because the commerce clause wouldn't apply?  I am a lawyer but haven't been able to figure it out.  Does anyone here understand the issue?  

I always understood it to do with state rights. What happens within borders of a state is their business, what happens between states is Federal.  I could be wrong.  Of course, with pro 2A to be nominated to the SCOTUS and possible more appointments, we just may see cases the court refused to handle, now be heard.  It will be interesting.  Hey Justice RBG, booked your flights yet?  Wouldn't it be great if Donny asked her to hold the bible on Inauguration Day as Roberts issues the oath?

With Trump in office and Republican control over house and senate, the chances of passage of a national carry reciprocity bill now seems quite high.  There are currently 3 or 4 proposed bills.  They are all substantially similar -- and all specifically provide that reciprocity doesn't apply to a person in their state of residence.  For example, if such a bill passed, permit holders resident in any other state could carry in NJ but a NJ resident with an out of state permit could not.  That is an insane result and it would be interesting to see what would happen.

 

My question is -- why?  Why do each of these bills have this same limitation?  Tenth Amendment challenge?  Granting reciprocity to non-NJ residents would itself already be subject to Tenth Amendment challenge?  Is it because the commerce clause wouldn't apply?  I am a lawyer but haven't been able to figure it out.  Does anyone here understand the issue?  

 

I'm not a lawyer but my theory is that they're written that way to preserve states' rights (aka power) over their residents.

 

States' rights is one of the excuses that the PA AG's have been using to re-examine reciprocity agreements. It came to their attention that some PA residents have been granted the right to concealed carry by other states, in effect superseding PA's sovereignty over its citizens, and no government on earth likes seeing its power usurped. 

IANAL About the only states that would not have reciprocity, are New Jersey, New York, Maryland, the District of Columbia. This keeps Bloomberg a little happier, and is a bill that may have had a chance at survival. Forcing reciprocity on the 4 or 5 states that do not issue carry permits, would have greatly offended Bloomberg, and would have been more difficult or even impossible to get past.

 

Legal challenges to excluding New Jersey, New York, Maryland, etc. would certainly follow

I get the states' rights issue, but forcing a state to accept a permit from another state is itself a states' rights issue.  What I don't get is how allowing a resident of the state to avail himself of the law makes the states' rights issue any more severe.  And the resident had to cross state lines (literally or through the mail) to get a permit from another state so there is a nexus to interstate commerce.  In other words -- it is definitely a states' rights issue to begin with, so why discriminate against residents of a state who need to rely on the law.

 

IANAL About the only states that would not have reciprocity, are New Jersey, New York, Maryland, the District of Columbia. This keeps Bloomberg a little happier, and is a bill that may have had a chance at survival. Forcing reciprocity on the 4 or 5 states that do not issue carry permits, would have greatly offended Bloomberg, and would have been more difficult or even impossible to get past.

 

Legal challenges to excluding New Jersey, New York, Maryland, etc. would certainly follow

 

True.  But under the law there would be lots of people from other states walking around NYC packing, thus causing Bloomberg's to have a stroke in any event.

We are a LOOONG way from blaming State's rights for lack of National Carry.  Gun Free Zone act (and numerous other infringements) were based on either "commerce clause"  or  "general welfare" responsibility of Feds.    

 

 

For example, if Gun Free Zone act is NOT infringing on State's rights because it uses "involved in interstate commerce", then it can / should equally be used  to justify National Carry. Whats good for the goose is good for gander. 

Substitute marriage (regardless of orientation) permit for carry permit and you have your answer.

Substitute marriage (regardless of orientation) permit for carry permit and you have your answer.

Mmmm, not I don't.  I understand the analogy and why their are good arguments for carry reciprocity.  I wasn't questioning that.  What I don't understand is why the drafters of the legislation excluded residents of a state from enjoying reciprocity in their home state with respect to an out of state permit.

I get the states' rights issue, but forcing a state to accept a permit from another state is itself a states' rights issue.  What I don't get is how allowing a resident of the state to avail himself of the law makes the states' rights issue any more severe.  And the resident had to cross state lines (literally or through the mail) to get a permit from another state so there is a nexus to interstate commerce.  In other words -- it is definitely a states' rights issue to begin with, so why discriminate against residents of a state who need to rely on the law.

 

I think you are looking at what is essentially political issue through a legal lens.  Overriding the permitting process of a state for its own citizens, while they are in that state, is likely seen as a greater degree of intervention than requiring other states permits be honored.  

 

There used to be versions of reciprocity that allowed states which didn't issue permits to not have to honor out of state permits.  But we now live in a world where every state has some kind of permitting process on the books.  

 

I think any kind of reciprocity is helpful, though a the stronger that reciprocity is the more beneficial to us 

National constitutional carry???

Mmmm, not I don't.  I understand the analogy and why their are good arguments for carry reciprocity.  I wasn't questioning that.  What I don't understand is why the drafters of the legislation excluded residents of a state from enjoying reciprocity in their home state with respect to an out of state permit.

Because the legislators who drafted the bills are from states that recognize the US Constitution.

I think we are too stuck in the "permit" mind set. By agreeing to the concept of State Issued Permit, we have invariably made this a State issue. When its really not.

 

2A says its right of People to keep and bear arms with strong language "shall not be infringed". As a Citizen each person also has right to freely pass through and travel without burden.   Limiting that travel is NOT up to the state, and neither enforcing the "free passage" is against State right, isnt it ? 

 

IF State's rights trump important rights such as 2A, then we have to go back and undo about 90% of all federal laws. 

 

Or we may have to get SCOTUS rule on the "bear" part of the 2A. 

I think we are too stuck in the "permit" mind set. By agreeing to the concept of State Issued Permit, we have invariably made this a State issue. When its really not.

 

2A says its right of People to keep and bear arms with strong language "shall not be infringed". As a Citizen each person also has right to freely pass through and travel without burden.   Limiting that travel is NOT up to the state, and neither enforcing the "free passage" is against State right, isnt it ? 

 

IF State's rights trump important rights such as 2A, then we have to go back and undo about 90% of all federal laws. 

 

Or we may have to get SCOTUS rule on the "bear" part of the 2A. 

 

SCOTUS (Scalia included) previously ruled that the states have the right to place limitations on the Second Amendment. Even if Trump could appoint Wayne LaPierre to the court, I'm not sure the majority would rule that a state's permit process was a violation of the Second Amendment.

SCOTUS (Scalia included) previously ruled that the states have the right to place limitations on the Second Amendment. Even if Trump could appoint Wayne LaPierre to the court, I'm not sure the majority would rule that a state's permit process was a violation of the Second Amendment.

I think that is exactly what SCOTUS is there for. To rule against any state law that violates the U.S. Constitutional rights of it's citizens! If the 9th and 3rd circuit Federal Courts can dictate to a state....SCOTUS surely can and should.

I think that is exactly what SCOTUS is there for. To rule against any state law that violates the U.S. Constitutional rights of it's citizens! If the 9th and 3rd circuit Federal Courts can dictate to a state....SCOTUS surely can and should.

 

I agree, and that's what the court did in Heller. When D.C. passed laws that effectively banned handgun ownership, the Court said not so fast, that violates the Constitution and struck it down. What I'm pointing out is that in that same decision Justice Scalia said that gun rights are not unlimited, i.e. states could forbid guns in schools and government buildings and states could impose restrictions on the right to carry. 

 

Filling one Supreme Court vacancy does not necessarily tip the Court in favor of constitutional carry. Just this past summer Roberts, Kennedy and Alito supported a majority decision (Voisine v. United States) in which misdemeanor violations led to the confiscation of individuals' guns in Maine. I'm not convinced Roberts, Kennedy, Alito or even Thomas are going to lend support to a decision that completely scraps state controls.

^^^ And there is a work around for that without dramatically disturbing the State's rights. Using the commerce clause, which almost every one of these Pending Bills have. My understanding is that Commerce Clause was successfully used to dramatically increase Feds power (there is another recent thread on that topic). 

With Trump in office and Republican control over house and senate, the chances of passage of a national carry reciprocity bill now seems quite high.  There are currently 3 or 4 proposed bills.  They are all substantially similar -- and all specifically provide that reciprocity doesn't apply to a person in their state of residence.  For example, if such a bill passed, permit holders resident in any other state could carry in NJ but a NJ resident with an out of state permit could not.  That is an insane result and it would be interesting to see what would happen.

 

My question is -- why?  Why do each of these bills have this same limitation?  Tenth Amendment challenge?  Granting reciprocity to non-NJ residents would itself already be subject to Tenth Amendment challenge?  Is it because the commerce clause wouldn't apply?  I am a lawyer but haven't been able to figure it out.  Does anyone here understand the issue?  

 

i'm not sure you read some of the bills correctly. 2 of them are as you describe but the other two just basically say that if you have a permit, it's valid in all states. doesn't matter whether it's resident or non resident, so if either of the 2 house bills pass, an nj resident with an out of state permit can carry in all 50 states

 

edit: here we go. s 498 and h.r. 923 apply to permits issued from your home state. h.r. 986 and h.r. 402 simply say anyone with a valid permit issued by ANY state. obviously we'd prefer either of those. h.r. 986 seems to be the lead one, which is great news

 

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20151030/national-right-to-carry-reciprocity-legislation

^^^ And there is a work around for that without dramatically disturbing the State's rights. Using the commerce clause, which almost every one of these Pending Bills have. My understanding is that Commerce Clause was successfully used to dramatically increase Feds power (there is another recent thread on that topic). 

 

I don't have the legal background to judge whether that's a viable workaround or not, but remember, power given to the Federal Government is never relinquished willingly. Be very careful what you give up in perpetuity for short term gain.

i'm not sure you read some of the bills correctly. 2 of them are as you describe but the other two just basically say that if you have a permit, it's valid in all states. doesn't matter whether it's resident or non resident, so if either of the 2 house bills pass, an nj resident with an out of state permit can carry in all 50 states

 

Can you link the two latter bills? I'd like to read them. (I've only seen the text of Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 | S.498 so far.)

i edited my post above to include the links to the legislation

There is an initial downside to national reciprocity,at least for residents of states like NJ. Think about it - why would non-resident permits need to exist if national reciprocity passed?

There is an initial downside to national reciprocity,at least for residents of states like NJ. Think about it - why would non-resident permits need to exist if national reciprocity passed?

 

well if residents of 49 other states are allowed to legally carry a firearm in and out of your state with impunity, i would imagine even the morons in nj legislature would have no choice but to start issuing. they'd have no reason to oppose at that point

well if residents of 49 other states are allowed to legally carry a firearm in and out of your state with impunity, i would imagine even the morons in nj legislature would have no choice but to start issuing. they'd have no reason to oppose at that point

 

You would think so, but this is New Jersey. 

 

 

Thank you for posting the links to the bills. Did anyone else notice...

 

H.R. 986: "To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State."

 

H.R. 402: "To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State."

 

If I'm reading correctly, neither S.498, H.R. 986 nor H.R. 402 is not going to help us here in NJ.

 

Parsing H.R. 923 is giving me a headache, but the NRA site says, "this legislation is the House companion bill to S. 498.  The legislation would also respect the rights of individuals who possess concealed carry permits from their home state."

 

So, 0 for 4 for NJ residents?  

 

if any form on National reciprocity is passed, it creates a 14th amendment case on NJ and other restriction  states that they will not be able to defeat. They will have created two classes of people in terms of rights, it's a slam dunk

 

 

It is the same principal as a drivers license

I don't have the legal background to judge whether that's a viable workaround or not, but remember, power given to the Federal Government is never relinquished willingly. Be very careful what you give up in perpetuity for short term gain.

The "commerce clause" is a done deal, already giving Feds enormous powers to the extent that they can (and have) control if you can grow vegetables, in your backyard, for your own consumption. We know we are not going back. Might as well take advantage of it. 

 

Read text of those bills you referenced above. Most of them have language "any firearm that is passed / involved in interstate commerce". So smart lawyers (the authors of these bills) are making this as Feds controlling an item that was involved in an interstate commerce. Exact same "loophole" used in the Gun Free Zone act (amended). 

The following is just my wishful  opinion....   Especially with AT LEAST one conservative supreme court judge coming in and the POUS backing the effort,  I'm thinking/hoping for a shall issue case/ruling in the future. Even if the states have the right to reasonable restrictions, a ruling that denying a law abiding citizen CCW is infringement would be feasible?

Even if that were not to come about down that path, I don't see why everyone from another state can carry in NJ, but the NJ citizen cannot protect himself may be a civil rights case if national 

reciprocity were passed.

Who knows, If things were to go unimaginably good SCOTUS could even look at, stand your ground and castle doctrine. And no I'm not coming up with thoughts of this happening in NJ from sniffing glue.

I agree, and that's what the court did in Heller. When D.C. passed laws that effectively banned handgun ownership, the Court said not so fast, that violates the Constitution and struck it down. What I'm pointing out is that in that same decision Justice Scalia said that gun rights are not unlimited, i.e. states could forbid guns in schools and government buildings and states could impose restrictions on the right to carry.

 

Filling one Supreme Court vacancy does not necessarily tip the Court in favor of constitutional carry. Just this past summer Roberts, Kennedy and Alito supported a majority decision (Voisine v. United States) in which misdemeanor violations led to the confiscation of individuals' guns in Maine. I'm not convinced Roberts, Kennedy, Alito or even Thomas are going to lend support to a decision that completely scraps state controls.

The Scalia quote is the pivot. What he said was state government has the power to limit firearms. IN SPECIFIC LOCATIONS. I have no problem with that, Prisions, courtrooms etc. The problem with it is, people misconstrue that to somehow mean permiting is valid to exercise a right. If a permission is required, bearing arms is not a right, but a priviledge. And last time I checked we don't have a Bill of Priviledges.

You would think so, but this is New Jersey.

 

 

Thank you for posting the links to the bills. Did anyone else notice...

 

 

H.R. 986: "To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State."

H.R. 402: "To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State."

If I'm reading correctly, neither S.498, H.R. 986 nor H.R. 402 is not going to help us here in NJ.

 

 

So, 0 for 4 for NJ residents?

NJ is a may issue state. It would apply. They'd try to limit it by crafting some legislation to void reciprocity, so that is where it would become interesting.

They will never let it happen here. I know he's old hat, but Sweeny said basically he will never allow it here. I'm sure any of his minions feel the same way.

Only way is to oust the dems and that has been an impossible endeavor.